Miles & More (Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, and other partners) - Internet returning to LH soon?

I've read a couple of things in the press lately about LH returning to offering internet service on their longhaul flights. Does anybody know when they might be relaunching?

The old Flynet was awesome. I was very said when Boeing pulled the plug on their Connexion service.

Who really needs that? :td:The horror vision would be 20% - 30% of C or F class using skype on long haul night flights:mad: Have you ever noticed what a nuisance you are to fellow pax hacking all night on your key board?

If you are so important that the world can not live without you for 8 hours try NetJets, they have datalink in their G V's. Or use the phone booth LH has installed.

LH/LX please refrain !

Who really needs that? :td:The horror vision would be 20% - 30% of C or F class using skype on long haul night flights:mad: Have you ever noticed what a nuisance you are to fellow pax hacking all night on your key board?

If you are so important that the world can not live without you for 8 hours try NetJets, they have datalink in their G V's. Or use the phone booth LH has installed.

LH/LX please refrain !

I disagree - posts like yours were abundant before the LH connexion times - and then when it was introduced the scenario you discribe never materilized. However many pax including myself found it very useful and miss it since its decommisioning.

Cheers

Thomas

Who really needs that? The horror vision would be (...)
LH/LX please refrain !
:confused:

The old Flynet was awesome. I was very said when Boeing pulled the plug on their Connexion service.
Flynet was the reason I started flying LH regularly. ;) I could survive 10+ hr flights in Y with my laptop and a fully-charged spare battery quite happily. Since Flynet was withdrawn I'm having to cough up Z fares for these trips. :rolleyes:

If voice over IP (and cell phone voice) use is actively discouraged I'd love to have onboard web access too. Especially now, when many smart phones and devices can use it beyound bulky laptops.

In the States there seems to be a new ground based inflight-phone system that is said to be way cheaper compared to the sat based ones. Maybe this would be something for Europe too?

Internet connection is essential for travellers especially from North America who spend long time on LH jets traveling to points beyond Europe and they need to be in touch with the office or their family.

I think it is time for LH to bring back that service but they should disallow using any sound chatting not to disturb follow passengers even with mics and speakers. Just typing e-mails and browsing without casuing any noise level.

This would certainly be a welcomed reintroduction .^
I have had no problems with fellow passengers using the internet in
the past on LH or other airlines.

There was an article in most recent issue of Frequent Traveler about LH activities in the USA , incl an interview with some LH exec about opening of
the new lounges at JFK and the reintroduction of internet on board during
2009 , no specific date was given.

I was going through my attic, and I found an old airport newspaper. One of the pages was a full-page ad for "the new PrivateBeds", and "internet at every seat"...nostalgia....

First, I don't think you have to worry about voice calls on TATL flights. The delay is so horrible and the voice quality as well that it is not worth it. As I am in telco business, when Flynet was introduced, had to try it out for testing purposes and found it unusable (and I have a pretty big tolerance level for voice quality).
But for email, IM, internet surfing, reading news it is perfect. I can take care of my work while flying (two-three hours max) and when arrive to the destination relax.
Today I do lot of emails on the plane and when arrive have to replicate the email, so noise level for my seat neighbour is the same. (usually I do it at beginning of the flight :-) )

I'd love to see internet being re-introduced !

Who really needs that? :td:The horror vision would be 20% - 30% of C or F class using skype on long haul night flights:mad: Have you ever noticed what a nuisance you are to fellow pax hacking all night on your key board?

If you are so important that the world can not live without you for 8 hours try NetJets, they have datalink in their G V's. Or use the phone booth LH has installed.

LH/LX please refrain !

This is not my experience, back when the Connexion service was in place. I actually never met anybody using VOIP and on night flights virtually no pax in F/C were using it at all, because they were sleeping.

However, on long (westbound) daytime flights, I find it more meaningful to do a bit of work, rather than killing my time with stupid movies.

I would strongly welcome it back!

hey,

The delay is so horrible and the voice quality as well that it is not worth it.

hope you don't mind me disagreeing with you. Delay was reasonable, skype quality was really good but sound of the engines was way too loud for the person on the other side of the line. I flew Y that time (as usual rows 50+) - maybe in F/C this would be a bit better.

But I agree - I don't think that running teleconference all the time would be a real added value. Email connections, some web browsing, maybe a bit of IM - nothing really more.

mf

First, I don't think you have to worry about voice calls on TATL flights. The delay is so horrible and the voice quality as well that it is not worth it. As I am in telco business, when Flynet was introduced, had to try it out for testing purposes and found it unusable (and I have a pretty big tolerance level for voice quality).

I don't know about VOIP, but I once listened to an entire baseball game over the internet using FlyNet. Quality was just fine... made the flight seem half as long.

I do wonder about the quality of service with all of the streaming video, etc. available on the web. With 20 or 30 people all trying to stream youtube or worse over a satellite connection....

Hopefully they'll even partner with T-online and I'll be able to use my login for that... but probably not.

without a doubt, the return of a FlyNet similar service on LH would be the
number one reason for me to fly more.

At the moment, i have to take uncomfortable flights or have long airport lay overs to be able to work. (My work is related to internet marketing.).

I can not wait until Finally the internet service returns. My flying pattern has literally changed drastically since it was taken out.

I really couldn't care less if my seatmate is surfing the web, working on Excel or watching the IFE. So I don't see any disadvantage for me when LH is re-introducing the flynet (I won't use it on a long-haul, as I avoid to carry any electronic garbage on holiday trips).

But the personal freedom ends where it starts to disturb others - so I won't fly with any airline offering cheap meanings for voice communication. And no, I never flew on a plane with flynet, so I can't judge whether this was an issue or not. But I know from regular train-rides that nothing is more bothering than listening to noisy monologues spoken into my direction - one reason why nowadays I prefer to fly within Europe.

An airplane is not a phone-boot, and I hope that LH is aware of this. Quiet communication (email, SMS and whatever) is OK - for those who need it...

Skype worked fine the one time I tried it onboard a long westbound flight (in 83C :D ). However, the engine / cabin noise was so lound that it made any conversation useless. (Thank God actually!!).

Streaming video also worked just fine. I watched about 30 minutes of N-TV.de live streaming video news.
The transfer rates were up to 750kbit/s even over Greenland (...where others are always sleeping ... ;) )

anything that can be buffered is fine and is not real time communication, so any down streaming video is fine. even with oversubscribing the airplane pipe, just increase your buffer size and you'll be fine :D

The transfer rates were up to 750kbit/s even over Greenland (...where others are always sleeping ... ;) )
Right. ^

I used Flynet multiple times and it worked mostly fine. Issues were detected a couple times over Canada just North of Edmonton when the planes finally made their turn to the south (towards California). I had the feeling, that the direction of the plane influenced the speed and quality of Flynet.

..Have you ever noticed what a nuisance you are to fellow pax hacking all night on your key board?..
No.
But then I am not an IBM/Lenovo user :p .

FlyNet was great.

I never understood why Boeing pulled the plug on the service. They must have been able to at least recover the variable cost of operating the network (certainly not the initial cost of bringing the satellites in place).

FlyNet was great.

I never understood why Boeing pulled the plug on the service. They must have been able to at least recover the variable cost of operating the network (certainly not the initial cost of bringing the satellites in place).
If I understood more knowledgeable poster correctly, they shot no satellites for this venture but leased bandwidth on existing platforms.

Have you ever noticed what a nuisance you are to fellow pax hacking all night on your key board?

It do this anyway from time to time. Why would other pax bother?
Either they will be asleep and having earplus and eyeshades on anyway, or they're awake and probably making more noise then my quite silent laptop (especially now that is has an SSD). Having internet access defintively would make me more productive especially on those dayflights where I can in theory (and sometimes in practice) work 8+ hours on my seat without beeing interupted by meetings, etc. Just need to make sure it's high-latency enough to effectively kill VOIP :D

FlyNet was great.

I never understood why Boeing pulled the plug on the service. They must have been able to at least recover the variable cost of operating the network (certainly not the initial cost of bringing the satellites in place).

IIRC they said it cost them $150m per year to run the service with only 1000 people a day using it.

I work at a tech company and have at least a vague idea about what related products and services generally cost. I couldn't make heads or tails of the $150m then, I can't make heads or tails of it now.

Anyway, if you believe their yearly cost figures: they were so far off from breaking even that it's not even funny. They would have needed ~40x more users to be in the black. Somebody really screwed the pooch on that business plan.

Issues were detected a couple times over Canada just North of Edmonton when the planes finally made their turn to the south (towards California).

That was due to the hand over from one satellite to another. Flying from Europe to the US west coast, there were two or three satellites involved. Their signal's coverage overlapped but the hand over was done manually in the ground control center.

I had the chance to visit the Connexion NOC once and saw operators following airplane icons with their mouse pointers on a virtual map :eek: They had to click on the "airplane" to make the equipment on board re-establish a connection with another satellite. Remote control for grown-ups :)

IIRC they said it cost them $150m per year to run the service with only 1000 people a day using it.

I work at a tech company and have at least a vague idea about what related products and services generally cost. I couldn't make heads or tails of the $150m then, I can't make heads or tails of it now.

Anyway, if you believe their yearly cost figures: they were so far off from breaking even that it's not even funny. They would have needed ~40x more users to be in the black.

Fully agree. According to those numbers, they would need 6,000,000 sessions (at an $25/session untaxed) of Flynet per year just to break even. Assuming the rather favorable / unrealistic scenario of uniform demand, that would require 16,438 sessions per day. Assuming that 100 pax per Flynet-enabled flight are using Flynet (irrespective of loads, again an extremely optimistic scenario) this would mean that 164 planes should have been equipped with Flynet from day one.

Right. ^

I used Flynet multiple times and it worked mostly fine. Issues were detected a couple times over Canada just North of Edmonton when the planes finally made their turn to the south (towards California). I had the feeling, that the direction of the plane influenced the speed and quality of Flynet.

I used Flynet on every flight with the flat rate. As a fund manager it´s nice to be connected when you have spare time, especially on west-coast flights. I remember a couple of very nice trades I made over the Atlantic. I also used VoIP sometimes. Newspapers offer the news from yesterday, while my bloomi offers news and interviews in real-time. And it was really the best opportunity to write more complex emails beacause you have the time to do it, while using the corporate server for information access, that you need sometimes for the more difficult things.
Missing it now a bit. Would be great to have it back.

For me it was a form of IFE. Until Flynet was gone I didn't even notice there was no PTV in Y. :eek::o:D

I don´t quite understand in the first place , why it has to be so costly to provide internet via satellite. Surely if they had to launch dedicated satellites, that would run up costs, but can´t satellites be multi purpose , sharing costs and do general communication, GPS and whatever else sats can do + provide internet for air travel, shipping etc.

Fully agree. According to those numbers, they would need 6,000,000 sessions (at an $25/session untaxed) of Flynet per year just to break even. Assuming the rather favorable / unrealistic scenario of uniform demand, that would require 16,438 sessions per day. Assuming that 100 pax per Flynet-enabled flight are using Flynet (irrespective of loads, again an extremely optimistic scenario) this would mean that 164 planes should have been equipped with Flynet from day one.
Interesting!

The only assailable points in that argument are that on one hand 100 pax per flight is a really optimistic assumption (given no juice in Y) and one cycle per 24h per plane is a really low assumption ;) .

Maybe they might even each other out?

Anyone know why Conexxion was never installed on Cruise Ships as well? Seems to me that would have been a easy addition that would have helped them reach their subscriber requirements. I have long wondered about that.

Anyone know why Conexxion was never installed on Cruise Ships as well? Seems to me that would have been a easy addition that would have helped them reach their subscriber requirements. I have long wondered about that.

They offered it to yacht owners (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q1/nr_040114j.html) and AFAIK got a couple of these guys signed up. Not so sure about larger cruise ships though.

Interesting!

The only assailable points in that argument are that on one hand 100 pax per flight is a really optimistic assumption (given no juice in Y) and one cycle per 24h per plane is a really low assumption ;) .

Maybe they might even each other out?

Good points! To my defense, I was (implicitly) referring to long haul planes; those planes get to stay on the ground for quite a few hours even on turnarounds.

Hey, my post is indeed a bunch of heroic assumptions about almost everything, and I wouldn't expect (people like) you to buy any of this :o. However, it does serve a little purpose: to show by-and-large the absolute minimum size of investment required to break even.

Alas, as with most 4-line analyses, it still remains quite a lame one :o. Main point is that I don't believe that Flynet would work as promised with 100 pax on one plane (fly)surfing simultaneously. It would be slow like a turtle in a coma if it worked at all. So, the minimum number of simultaneous users on board does affect the required size of investment, and consequently the break-even calculations, which are no longer in the range of 150 million ;)

I don't understand where those $150m in costs are coming from. Astra2Connect (http://www.ses-astra.com/consumer/en/astra-broadband/astra2connect/index.php) offers broadband speeds of up to 2048 down/128 up at a price of €80 per month to anyone who wants it ( see, for example, http://www.stardsl.de/ ). I can't see much of a cost difference for the Astra2Connect system and the Connexxion system on the provider side, except having to offer several satellites with different footprints. Of course, on the reception side, this is technically a lot more difficult in the air than on the ground, but I didn't think Connexxion would have paid for these costs?

One major factor which brought about Connexion's demise is the fact that "three of the world's leading airlines (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q2/news_release_010613a.html)" :rolleyes: which signed a Letter of Intent as joint owners subsequently withdrew from the partnership post 9/11.

AFAIK military demand for the system grew so much that this became the way more interesting business case and B. lost it's interest in the slow moving civilian application.

Anyone know why Conexxion was never installed on Cruise Ships as well? Seems to me that would have been a easy addition that would have helped them reach their subscriber requirements. I have long wondered about that.
Sounds quite reasonable, however, there is another leader in the market, SeaMobile (http://www.seamobile.com/). The fact that SeaMobile hasn't tried to become ...AirMobile as well, leads me to believe that there's a different technology involved ;). Since I'm not an expert, that's all I can say / speculate.

On a side note, I took a cruise in the Caribbean (starting in SJU) on Carnival Destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Destiny) back in the summer of 2007. Carnival Cruise Lines do offer broadband services (internet, telephony, etc.) on board, powered by SeaMobile. SeaMobile also works with other major cruise operators such as Royal Caribbean, having their technology deployed on more than 200 cruise ships and 300 other vessels and locations worldwide. That makes a nice stake since apart from cruise ships, the company also works with ferries, container ships, private yachts, and offshore oil platforms, as well as some U.S. government and Navy vessels (http://www.seamobile.com/market_solutions/index.aspx).

So, the good news is that (are you listening ...sailsurfer?:p) you can be connected everywhere aboard a (major operator's) cruise ship.

The bad news is that pricing is rather steep (like pretty much everything you buy on a cruise ship):

Aboard the Carnival Destiny one has to pay $0.75 per minute( i.e., $45 per hour :td: ) on a PAYGO basis; through a "discounted" time plan the cost may come down to $0.40 per minute, that is $24 per hour.

Ironically, this is about as much as one would have to pay for a whole session on Connexion's Flynet! (Might give us a clue about how a future similar service would be priced!) :D

Still VOIPing through this service is cheaper than making a call from your guest suite ($9 per minute :rolleyes: )

Good points! To my defense, I was (implicitly) referring to long haul planes; those planes get to stay on the ground for quite a few hours even on turnarounds.

Hey, my post is indeed a bunch of heroic assumptions about almost everything..
Nah! It's a great post - these numbers didn't occur to me ... nor to the folks @ Boeing obviously ;) .
I don't believe that Flynet would work as promised with 100 pax on one plane (fly)surfing simultaneously. It would be slow like a turtle in a coma if it worked at all..
That was my only fear the few times I used it: with 700kBit/plane, it would allow for maybe 30-40 active users of FT and email ;) .

I don't understand where those $150m in costs are coming from. Astra2Connect (http://www.ses-astra.com/consumer/en/astra-broadband/astra2connect/index.php) offers broadband speeds of up to 2048 down/128 up at a price of €80 per month to anyone who wants it..
I can only imagine how those FAs would act up when you tried to glue that dish to the outer skinn of the plane. All these stories about increased fuel consumptions, engines reacting allergically to antenna ingestion etc etc :rolleyes: ...
..I can't see much of a cost difference for the Astra2Connect system and the Connexxion system on the provider side, except having to offer several satellites with different footprints. Of course, on the reception side, this is technically a lot more difficult in the air than on the ground, but I didn't think Connexxion would have paid for these costs?
Except that the former services are of course aimed at stationary targets, only have to illuminate the populated areas etc. There ought to be some differences.

Except that the former services are of course aimed at stationary targets, only have to illuminate the populated areas etc. There ought to be some differences.Yes, of course. Astra2Connect is focussed on Europe and therefore usable with small antenna. However, there are other satellites that illuminate far larger areas - the main difference is that you need a bigger antenna to receive the signal.

Yes, of course. Astra2Connect is focussed on Europe and therefore usable with small antenna. However, there are other satellites that illuminate far larger areas - the main difference is that you need a bigger antenna to receive the signal.
Not only that - if satellites illuminate a larger area, they do not just drop in power flux per area, but in order to feed a reasonable amount of data per unit area they change modulation, carrier, and polarisation of the subbeam which make up their illumination cone.

So when you move from area to area, your antenna needs to adjust to these changing parameters. And even worse - it needs to know which parameter there will be and the satellite needs to be told that you are changing subbeam.

This adds layers of complexity.

Sounds quite reasonable, however, there is another leader in the market, SeaMobile (http://www.seamobile.com/). The fact that SeaMobile hasn't tried to become ...AirMobile as well, leads me to believe that there's a different technology involved ;). Since I'm not an expert, that's all I can say / speculate.

On a side note, I took a cruise in the Caribbean (starting in SJU) on Carnival Destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Destiny) back in the summer of 2007. Carnival Cruise Lines do offer broadband services (internet, telephony, etc.) on board, powered by SeaMobile. SeaMobile also works with other major cruise operators such as Royal Caribbean, having their technology deployed on more than 200 cruise ships and 300 other vessels and locations worldwide. That makes a nice stake since apart from cruise ships, the company also works with ferries, container ships, private yachts, and offshore oil platforms, as well as some U.S. government and Navy vessels (http://www.seamobile.com/market_solutions/index.aspx).

So, the good news is that (are you listening ...sailsurfer?:p) you can be connected everywhere aboard a (major operator's) cruise ship.

The bad news is that pricing is rather steep (like pretty much everything you buy on a cruise ship):

Aboard the Carnival Destiny one has to pay $0.75 per minute( i.e., $45 per hour :td: ) on a PAYGO basis; through a "discounted" time plan the cost may come down to $0.40 per minute, that is $24 per hour.

Ironically, this is about as much as one would have to pay for a whole session on Connexion's Flynet! (Might give us a clue about how a future similar service would be priced!) :D

Still VOIPing through this service is cheaper than making a call from your guest suite ($9 per minute :rolleyes: )

This is why I never understood the demise... If Connexxion were available for $25/Day (I would even pay a little more than that) on cruise ships I would bet they would get a huge number of takers and it might have gotten them profitable. Maybe waves interfere but if they offered to yacht owners, I would think that eliminates that...

In 2004 I made a cruise with Royal Caribbean and the daily rate for in room internet was 15US$ - quite reasonable compared to what I have read and heard about in suite internet prices on other cruise lines. And yes, on the flight from MUC to SFO on the way to the cruise Flynet did operate.

In 2004 I made a cruise with Royal Caribbean and the daily rate for in room internet was 15US$ - quite reasonable compared to what I have read and heard about in suite internet prices on other cruise lines. And yes, on the flight from MUC to SFO on the way to the cruise Flynet did operate.
That leaves the one eeny weeny question why you went on a cruise in the first place when cable modem and DSL perform that much faster :p ?

Does anyone know if/when Lufthansa plan to reintroduce Wi-Fi onboard their aircraft?

In checking their web page (to paraphrase) they indicated that it is considered a popular amenity and they plan to reintroduce at some point...but I guess, not yet?

I have some upcoming travel and was wondering where they are on this issue.

Thank you in advance to anyone who responds.:)

Yes , they do^

EADS is working on a solution without having to rely on satellites. They want to turn each airplane into a replicator (hub). All airplanes that are part of the system and that are in the sky turn into satellites if you will. The airplanes must be within 1,000 miles of each other. This may also work for maritime internet communication?

EADS is working on a solution without having to rely on satellites. They want to turn each airplane into a replicator (hub). All airplanes that are part of the system and that are in the sky turn into satellites if you will. The airplanes must be within 1,000 miles of each other. This may also work for maritime internet communication?

But...when????

But...when????

I know people who are actually working on it.

My 1st Lufthansa flight ever was during Skynet's last month. The pilot said they were going to be turning the Internet on for free once we hit cruising altitude. I wasn't aware of the service before or that it wasn't normally free :D Though I've been ruined ever since and hoping it would someday return.

My 1st Lufthansa flight ever was during Skynet's last month. The pilot said they were going to be turning the Internet on for free once we hit cruising altitude. I wasn't aware of the service before or that it wasn't normally free :D Though I've been ruined ever since and hoping it would someday return.

Last month :confused::confused::confused:

Last month :confused::confused::confused:

English for runaways - last month of skynet ;)

Cheers

Thomas

English for runaways - last month of skynet ;)

Cheers

Thomas

AH ;) Don't challenge me before 9am without coffee :o

FlyNet was great.

I never understood why Boeing pulled the plug on the service. They must have been able to at least recover the variable cost of operating the network (certainly not the initial cost of bringing the satellites in place).It really was ridiculously expensive to operate as noted above.

EADS is working on a solution without having to rely on satellites. They want to turn each airplane into a replicator (hub). All airplanes that are part of the system and that are in the sky turn into satellites if you will. The airplanes must be within 1,000 miles of each other. This may also work for maritime internet communication?But...when????
I wouldn't hold your breath.

There is a Ku-Band (satellite) service coming online in the USA now via Row44. Southwest and Alaska Air are both piloting it right now. I'm not sure what the coverage is outside of North America, but the technology is still viable and Row44 seems to think that they have a more affordable way to do it. Aircell, the main terrestrial provider over here also claims to be working on a global plan for access/coverage but no real details yet.

The Runway Girl blog (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/runway-girl/) is, by far, the best resource I've found to keep up with IFE and in-flight internet connectivity developments. In just the past week she's had some great posts about global coverage (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/runway-girl/2009/03/welcome-to-the-grapevine-voyan.html) and other stuff.

AH ;) Don't challenge me before 9am without coffee :o

Especially on your birthday. :eek:

It really was ridiculously expensive to operate as noted above.


Thank you for this official explaination, which we trust in.

It came across at the time as if someone pulled the plug just to upset the rest of the world.

Here's a very good summary (even if quite US-centric) of where things are with inflight wifi.

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/03/in-flight-internet-really-uh-takes-off.ars

The Runway Girl blog (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/runway-girl/) is,

nice chick

Any update to wifi on LH flights?

http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,653532,00.html
http://www.infosat.de/Meldungen/?msgID=55353

Seems like there will be news announced on Monday - can't wait! :)

http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,653532,00.html
http://www.infosat.de/Meldungen/?msgID=55353

Seems like there will be news announced on Monday - can't wait! :)

LH and Panasonic avionics seem to have inited to a press conference next Monday. ^

LH and Panasonic avionics seem to have inited to a press conference next Monday. ^

As long as they do the same as BA on their A318 - blocking voice applications - I will continue to fly LH.

Otherwise - I'm not keen of having acustic conditions on a plane like on an ICE...

As long as they do the same as BA on their A318 - blocking voice applications - I will continue to fly LH.

Otherwise - I'm not keen of having acustic conditions on a plane like on an ICE...

AFAIK LH did not do that the last time - and as much as the expectation was that this would wastly increase the noice level aboard - I failed to notice this in real life when the old system was in opeartion.

Just my 2 Rappen

Cheers

Thomas

As long as they do the same as BA on their A318 - blocking voice applications - I will continue to fly LH.

Otherwise - I'm not keen of having acustic conditions on a plane like on an ICE...
dont worry - I tried the old system and skype...
as the noise level in the plane is quite high its hard to understand the audio and even harder to use the microphone- so you try it once or twice as a novelty - and then you stop...
and how do you want to block voice applications if i use my vpn????

dont worry - I tried the old system and skype...
as the noise level in the plane is quite high its hard to understand the audio and even harder to use the microphone- so you try it once or twice as a novelty - and then you stop...
and how do you want to block voice applications if i use my vpn????

Same here. I tried Skype once on the old flynet but it was practically unusable due to the noise level and I didn't want to shout in the F cabin. (not to say that there aren't people who would ... like some French chap at the FCT right now shouting into his mobile phone:mad: )

dont worry - I tried the old system and skype...
as the noise level in the plane is quite high its hard to understand the audio and even harder to use the microphone- so you try it once or twice as a novelty - and then you stop...
and how do you want to block voice applications if i use my vpn????


Still can block most of the VOIP and for VPN can block voice either. Any way the quality due to noise is really usless, but still I don't want to have someone next to me try it at 03:00AM for few times till he will realize that it's too noisy.

not to say that there aren't people who would ... like some French chap at the FCT right now shouting into his mobile phone

Just give him this face :mad: he will stop (I done it work 99% of time).

Just give him this face :mad: he will stop (I done it work 99% of time).
With a French this might work. With a guy from the land of the free... NEVER :o

Surfen über den Wolken

Great image below the Spiegel Online headline - the plane is clearly on the ground at an airport (see infrastructure in the background). The people could be using UMTS or even the airport's wifi...

Surfen über den Wolken

Great image below the Spiegel Online headline - the plane is clearly on the ground at an airport (see infrastructure in the background). The people could be using UMTS or even the airport's wifi...

Or how do you like this one?
http://www.airliners.de/nachrichten/bereiche/management/marketing/lufthansa-wieder-online-auf-langstrecken/19280

It says: Lufthansa wieder online auf Langstrecken (Lufthansa back online on longhoul)

Looking at the seats this is clearly a shorthoul seat, even if coach :o

Look at any press release about flying and you will find highlights like the following ones:

Emirates A330-200 (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/reise/522/442262/bilder/?img=6.0)
Ehm, ... at least the correct airline.

Air France B777-300 (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/reise/522/442262/bilder/?img=8.0)
Well, maybe. But not the one in the air.

UA B737-300 (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/reise/522/442262/bilder/?img=7.0)
Wow, I've never been in such a large B737

Cathay B777-300 (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/reise/522/442262/bilder/?img=10.0)
Yeah, Cathay is very spacy on board and has lots of overhead monitors.

SWISS A340 (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/reise/522/442262/bilder/?img=9.0)
Yes, this is definitely SWISS. Well done... ^

Or how do you like this one?
http://www.airliners.de/nachrichten/bereiche/management/marketing/lufthansa-wieder-online-auf-langstrecken/19280

It says: Lufthansa wieder online auf Langstrecken (Lufthansa back online on longhoul)

Looking at the seats this is clearly a shorthoul seat, even if coach :o

Right, but it's the first pic of new C on the A380.

Seriously...@:-)

Look at any press release about flying and you will find highlights like the following ones:

Emirates A330-200 (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/reise/522/442262/bilder/?img=6.0)
Ehm, ... at least the correct airline.


Well, sort of. It's the Airbus test plane with temporary EK stickers.

Right, but it's the first pic of new C on the A380.

Seriously...@:-)

:confused::confused:

I don't even see the middle seat blocking down that they have in European C?

UA B737-300 (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/reise/522/442262/bilder/?img=7.0)
Wow, I've never been in such a large B737

They grow with age. UAs 737 are often more than 20 years old. If they can keep them in the air for another 20 years they will be the size of an A380. This is a very clever fleet strategy.

Right, but it's the first pic of new C on the A380.

Seriously...@:-)

^ Good one.
But LH did show pictures of the new C to people last year and this is where most of the information here on the board comes from.

FlyNet is back. Announced today.

http://www.flugrevue.de/de/zivilluftfahrt/airlines-flugbetrieb/lufthansa-ab-mitte-2010-wieder-mit-internet-an-bord.14535.htm

Starting Mid 2010, up to 96 long range a/c. Fees TBD. No phone calls it sounds like.

No phone calls it sounds like.

That is for sure: the GSM/UMTS pico cells on board will only allow data transmission (email, SMS etc) but no voice calls.

LH will not use firewall filters and such to block certain internet applications (e.g. VoIP) over WLAN. However, since the quietness on board seems to be holy to LH they will have a human filtering mechanism (aka FA) on board :)

They also could play noisy Marschmusik on the PA to jam any skypers. Or maybe any Herbert Grönemeyer will do it.

Here is ENG announcement...

http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/sp/flynet/index.html

Here is ENG announcement...

http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/sp/flynet/index.html

Taken from that link:

Transmission mode:
Satelliten-supported broadband system

Satelliten - can it be that difficult to get a statement out in the correct language :confused:

Cheers

Thomas

Middle of 2010... Big fanfare for nothing... When is the announcement for new F coming? Should be flying before they offer internet...

Taken from that link:

Transmission mode:
Satelliten-supported broadband system

Satelliten - can it be that difficult to get a statement out in the correct language :confused:

Cheers

Thomas

Seriously? This company is not able to internaly communicate from top to bottom a simple procedure directive like a rule change for access to their lounges. And you are asking yourself this question?

I just received the announcement from the Swedish marketing yesterday. It doesn't seem that any more information has been added to it since October.

It does seem that the typo is gone, at least. But then I looked to the right and saw "Current Themes" - strange translation. I guess in German it is "Aktuelle Themen". I should be happy that it wasn't translated to "Actual Themes".

I just received the announcement from the Swedish marketing yesterday. It doesn't seem that any more information has been added to it since October.
So did I in the UK Newsletter and when I clicked the link it was the same news release from October 2009. :td::o